In a non-contentious tone, what makes you think the odds are pretty good we'd gobble up newer frames at the right price when we turned down/deffered 65 new airframes at the right price less than a year ago?

That’s the $64K Question, isn’t it?

I've posted at legnth previously that our oldest frames are the 756s and 320s (see post #301 on this thread - "in the next five years or so there is definitely a more pressing need to replace larger mainline aircraft than add smaller ones.").

Those brand new 118 seat -700s would have replaced... neither 150 seat 320s or bigger 756s. They were purchased by previous management to fill the 100 seat "gap". Current management doesn't seem concerned with this gap (as evidenced by the minimal new hires since Kirby came onboard). I don't think they will do anything about the gap at least until our new contract is signed, if ever. Ironically, even without the -700s, our ASMs under Kirby are going to be growing faster than DAL/AA for awhile.

Anyways, in regards to the 320s, the -9/-10 MAX orders can upgauge from retiring 320s and help increase capacity at our most congested hubs (upgauging seems a bit easier than cramming more airplanes into SFO/EWR/LAX). However, there is no good replacement on the horizon for the 756 fleet. -10 MAXs can help on the low end and 787s can help on the high end, allowing some retirements down the road. But there is still a big gaping 756 sized hole in the middle of our fleet that cannot realistically be filled by anything other than the 756 for almost a decade (if you are thinking 321LRs, see RJ Dio's post above). Sure, life extensions alone might do the job until the 797 comes aboard. But, opportunistic buys of a dozen or so aircraft might be a better idea than extending the lives of airframes which are already approaching thirtysomething.

I form my guesses based on fleet study and paying attention to what management does and my guesses evolve as more evidence surfaces. I find it more interesting than sports fantasy leagues, and I tend to draft players who get hurt anyways (damn you Derek Carr!). I'd bet a few beers the next fleet announcement is some more used 319s, which would help further forestall any near term need for 100 seaters.

In another non-contentious voice, I happen to love fantasy football (and had Derek Carr as one of my QBs). Thanks for your reply. You compared Kirby and this new management to the old management. What has the new management done to indicate that new airframes will be gobbled up? It seems that they have been more active in regurgitating orders as opposed to gobbling them up.

You mentioned "our ASMs under Kirby are going to be growing faster than DAL/AA for awhile." There is no linear line between ASMs and pilot hiring but something isn't adding up. We aren't gobbling anything comparatively and moves made over the last year don't indicate a change.

So my question is, other than a perceived need to replace older airframes, what signs (not words) do you actually see that this management wants to gobble up airframes? I ask because the hiring numbers and deferrals say different.

TIA

I think you are entirely too focused on the word "gobble", not that there is anything wrong with that. I never made a case that we were about to embark on rapid airframe growth or anything resembling it. All I've really been talking about here is how we might deal with the advancing age of some of our oldest airframes, with some modest opportunistic purchases (I will henceforth avoid the word "gobble", so you can relax). If you've listened to any investor presentations since AL has come on board as CFO, he has said repeatedly that we were looking hard at the used aircraft market (esp wide bodies). Kirby has also said as much. Sorry, their "words" don't equal "signs" to you. Yes, I'm aware that since then we went and bought a few more new 777s. AL and SK might have been lying all along about being interested in used frames, Heaven forbid! Time will tell, perhaps at the next earnings call. Didn't we just take out a $400 million line of credit the other day? May be a sign of an aircraft purchase... or not.

I'm not really sure what the point of your queries was, you didn't say anything I didn't obviously know already. If you want to make a case that we are going in an entirely different direction, feel free to write some lengthy paragraphs and add in some 89Pistons worthy "signs" to back them up. I might come around to agree with whatever your conclusion is.

The bottom line is that I see a definite need to replace older airframes down the road.... but apparently I need to foot stomp that replacement does not necessarily equal fleet or hiring growth. This outlook is entirely consistent with the slowdown in hiring over the last year. Now, if we announce tomorrow that we are buying some more 319s and actually grow that fleet further, that won't affect hiring for quite some time - over a year from now. The used Chinese 319 purchase was announced in May 2015, and didn't they only start hitting the line in last fall? Let's see what the next earnings call brings, shall we?

You've explained the need part pretty well. Maybe I misunderstood your post but I got the idea that you were indicating that management has an actual desire to buy a bunch of new planes. I know they've said it but in actuality they've done quite the opposite in just the last year. So I'm just trying to reconcile the difference between what they've said and what they've actually done.

Actually what he said was "newer used frames" not "new planes".

That seems to be the disconnect here (at least to me) So, he is not talking about new aircraft. Rather he is talking about getting some used planes that aren't quite as old as some of our current used planes, so that we can more easily bridge to the MOM replacement aircraft coming out sometime in the 20's (hopefully).

Certainly actions speak louder than words, so from that standpoint all we can say is this group didn't want the brand new 737-700s.

All of the "words" part of their aircraft plan seems to be pointed towards the only shortterm narrowbody aircraft acquisitions (before the Max) will be from the used market. While those words may be reasonable and can make one hopeful about acquiring some used airframes, again actions speak louder than words, so I will hold my excitement until I see the theoretical planes in UA colors being flown by UA pilots!

Commerce Department just added an ADDITIONAL 80% tarriff. Those CSeries will now come with a extra 300% total markup.

https://airwaysmag.com/manufacturer/...ing-complaint/

That markup has got to put the per frame price up in 787 territory... which DAL coincidentally cancelled a while back. Payback is a cranky woman it seems.

The company took steps to max out RJ scope limits to provide additional lift instead of the 737-700s, and will continue to seek scope relief to allow for profitable expansion in the US domestic market.

Remember, Kirby has never met an RJ he didn’t like and has already stated that scope relief is a top priority.